August 12, 2025 • 32 mins
The federal government taking over the crime problem in Wash DC. Will it be successful without changing the city council, prosecutors and judges? The meeting between President Trump and President Trump is fast approaching. Will anything come of it? Peace? Ceasefire? Inflation was up a little but still not on fire. Can you trust the numbers?
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-tom-sullivan-show--6632619/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-tom-sullivan-show--6632619/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
And hello, Hi, How are you welcome to the Big Podcast.
Today is Tuesday. It is the twelfth day of August,
year of our lower twenty twenty five. My name is
Tom Sullivan. Well, busy day today. We've got a lot
to cover. I've got to follow up on the story
still kind of ranking Number one today is about what's
(00:21):
going on in Washington, d C. And the federal government
taking control of the city and the police in order
to knock down the crime. And we've got a lot
to cover there. We've got the big meeting in Russia,
the big meeting in Alaska with Russian President Putin and
President Trump on Friday. We'll get you set up for
(00:42):
some of the thoughts on that and the economy. We
got the inflation rate out today and there was no nothing,
nothing rattled the cages there. So we'll get into all
of that. But let me start with Washington, d C.
Because I yesterday I was talking about and I know
that you're supposed to I guess if you're pro Trump,
(01:04):
you're supposed to rave about how this is going to
be so wonderful, and if you don't like Trump, you
think this is the worst thing ever that could possibly
have I'm not either of those. I just look at
it and I really do hope that it would make
some difference. And of course we're all rooting for less crime.
(01:26):
I just Washington d C. I know it well enough
to know that Washington, d C. Has had a high
crime rate for as long as I can remember. And
so yesterday statistics came out that well, look at this,
the crime rate's been dropping. Why the crime rate is
down to a thirty year low. We played a clip
of Cash Patel, the FBI director, reading off the statistics, saying,
(01:52):
this is the lowest we've had in thirty years. I
thought it was funny because of the fact that he
was supposed to be on the podium with the President
and the Attorney General talking about how they're going to
crack down on crime, and he gets up there and says, wow,
it looks like crimes come down quite a bit. So
statistics are nice, But the argument today is that that's
(02:17):
not what people are experiencing. The problem with that sort
of thing is all of you. I don't care if
you live in small town USA or you live in
New York City, you may or probably don't have much
interaction with crime. But when it happens to you, it's
a big deal. So there's now a bunch of people
(02:40):
today out there talking about why I saw a guy
shot in front of me, why there was a my
house was broken into, my car was broken. So they've
got all these anecdotal stories about crime. My problem isn't
about any of that. The point I'm trying to make
(03:00):
about the federal government stepping in to Washington, d C.
Is that I don't know if they're going to be
able to really accomplish anything. And that's what drives me
crazy about government. They come up with some policy that
does nothing effectively zero. And I have always in my
(03:20):
business life, you don't waste your time on something that's
not going to lead to some good result. You go
on to something else. And what I'm referring to is
that Washington is federal territory. It's not a state. They
answer the organizational charge. Yeah, they've got a mayor and
(03:41):
a chief of police and all that, but they answer
to Congress and the President. So nineteen seventy three, Congress
passed the Home Rule Act, and the Home Rule Act
says it allows the President to take control of the
DC police for forty eight hours if he determines that
(04:02):
special conditions of an emergency nature exists. Well, you're talking
about riots something like that in nineteen seventy three, coming
off the Civil Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and
then the civil rights riots going on in cities across
America in the late sixties early seventies, So that's what
(04:23):
that was about. It goes on to say forty eight
hour period can be extended if he notifies the relevant
congressional committees. I don't know which committees those are, but
then you can be extended. Doesn't say for how long.
And finally that president can take control for over thirty
(04:44):
days only if it's passed into law. So he's got
to go to Congress, and Congress I know they're worthless.
They have to sit down and debate some new law
and then pass it and then go to the president
for signature. So I'm looking at this and I'm going
you're not going to solve the crime problem in Washington,
(05:06):
d C. In forty eight hours, okay, Tom, But they
have thirty days, okay. So they get the extension to
thirty days. You're not going to solve it in thirty days.
To my point about this is not going to lead
to Diddley Squad. It will sound good, there will be
a lot of good soundbites, but I'm telling you, people
(05:31):
are all twisted into a pretzel over this whole thing.
I just told the whole thing is well, you can
speculate on why they're doing this, but I just don't
think it's going to change the crime rate in Washington,
d C. If I was a criminal and I knew
that they got the National Guard and all these other
(05:53):
things out there to supplement the DC police, I just
cool my jets for thirty days. Yeah, all right, So
I can't go out there and break into cars this week.
I'll wait until thirty days go by. Then I'm going
to go back out to committee my crimes. I don't know.
Harry Anton, the statistician over at CNN, had a look
(06:17):
at this. Here's his take.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
No, No, they hate this whole idea. I think there's
some idea out there that trumps somehow a conquering hero.
But he's in fact is welcomed in Washington, d C.
As Eagles fans are Commander's games. What are we talking
about here, Well, they could take a look here. DC
residents on Trump and local issues, He's too involved. Look
at this, seventy one percent say he is too involved,
and this course was even before Monday's actions, compared to
(06:40):
just eleven percent, just eleven percent who say they want
him more involved. In fact, a majority of every single
demo tested by The Washington Post and a poll earlier
this year, found that they believed that he was in
fact too involved. DC residents hate, hate this whole idea
of Trump getting involved in local issues. Yeah, okay, so
let's talk about that a little bit right. Residence on
the top problem facing DC crime, violence, and guns in
(07:03):
twenty twenty two was thirty six percent, but look at this,
it dropped fifteen points to twenty one percent earlier this year.
I should note that about fifty percent of DC residents
do believe that crime is extremely a very important problem.
But even that fifty percent is down from sixty five
percent back in twenty twenty four. So DC residents, like
the crime statistics themselves, suggest that crime is becoming less
(07:25):
of an issue in our nation's capital. And at this
particular point, just twenty one percent of DC residents in
fact believe that the top problem facing Washington, DC is crime, violence,
and guns and that might be part of the reason
why DC residents in fact believe that Trump's getting too
involved in local issues and won't exactly like this move. Yeah,
a lot of people have been concentrating on the policy
of this decision by President Trump, but I think it's
(07:46):
also important to point out the politics of this decision
and just talk about one reason why Donald Trump might
not like Washington DC besides the crime issue, and that
is because take a look at all of the counties
or the county equivalents nationwide, we're talking over three thousand.
Where did Donald Trump do the worst in twenty twenty four, Well,
he did the worst in Washington DC, getting just six
(08:06):
point five percent of the vote. The vast, vast majority,
ninety percent plus of DC voters went against Donald Trump. Again,
I just think it's so important to point out that
DC residents don't like this move, and they really don't
like President Trump. They hate Donald Trump, they hate Republicans.
Over and over again, they have voted against Donald Trump,
voted against Republicans and again on the crime issue. That's
(08:28):
so important. A smaller and smaller percentage going down, down, down.
Believe it is the top problem in our nation's capital
So there you go.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
The people of DC don't want anything to do with this.
They don't like Donald Trump, they don't like Republicans. And
you heard Harry, They've only six percent of the people
that are residents of Washington, d C. Voted for Donald Trump.
It's a political thing with him. They don't like Republicans,
they don't like him, they don't want him involved. So
(08:58):
that's it's their crime. If they won't live in a
high crime city, it's up to them to figure out
the solution. Megan Hayes is a big Democrat. She was
on Biden's communication team. She thinks it's a trap for Democrats.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
Listen, well, I think democrats have learned in the last
election and how Donald Trump continues to frame things that
talking about crime and immigration are two things that pull
very popular with the American people. So when Democrats come
out here and say, don't believe you're lying eyes DC
doesn't have crime, nobody actually believes that, and it just
falls into Donald Trump's messaging. In Donald Trump's trap because
(09:33):
we just look crazy saying that. And so I think
that it's smart for Mary Hobauser to come out and
say we're going to work with you We're excited you're here.
We wish you we would have done this differently, and
we wish you would have you know, it is concerning
to us, but we wish you would have worked with us.
But we're not going to say, don't believe you're lying eyes.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
The guy that agrees with her is on the opposite
side of the aisle. He speaks for conservative Scott Jennings.
He thinks she's right.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
I totally agree.
Speaker 5 (09:57):
I think that anybody who visits Washington on a regular basis,
anybody who lives there, would tell you the city is unsafe.
This argument that some people are putting forth that it's
a totally safe place to be and the president's making
up this crisis.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
No, it's an emergency.
Speaker 5 (10:10):
I mean, I myself saw a body hit the floor
at the bottom of the escalator and Union station back
in February. An eighteen year old kid was gunned down
and murdered there in cold blood. So I think Megan
is on the strategic piece is exactly right. I think
Democrats did the same thing on immigration. Frankly, you know,
the president says I want to crack down on immigration
and have some internal enforcement and shut down the border
(10:32):
and Democrats of course, went all in on defending the
other position. I think he's going to find a lot
of political support around the country for the idea that
our national capital should be safer than it is.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
It should be safer, all big cities should be safer.
But I don't know how you're going to exactly eliminate crime.
More importantly, I go back to the process of this
is limited to forty eight hours or gets extended all
the way out to thirty days, and I'm going whooped
the dew. They're not going to solve the crime in Washington,
DC in that period of time. But the police will
(11:05):
like it because they're going to have eight hundred National
Guard that will supplement them being eyes and ears out
on the street trying to stop crime. Paul Moraw, former
lieutenant with the NYPD, thinks they're going to like it.
Speaker 6 (11:23):
Yeah, they're going to welcome it because they're going to
get the assistance that they need in various things that
are the kind of things they don't want to do.
Let's tease it out. When you have something like the
National Guard coming in, right, they're not trained to go in.
Let's say, do search warrants, make arrests street encounters, but
they're almost certainly going to be used for is prophylactic
things that rely upon their professional presence. So we're going
(11:45):
to have a curfew, right. They're actually have already put
that in place, and in some cases they're actually making
it even more draconian because they want the young kids
who are committing a lot of these crimes off your streets. Well,
if you have around some of the trouble areas stationed
National Guard, some bi people that are going around that
are visible, that stops stuff before it happens. It's a
great force multiplier and it saves the police from having
(12:08):
to do that kind of stuff, frees them up to
handle the jobs that are coming over to radio, to
go to the house, knock on the door, ma'am you
called nine one one, what's going on? And that's the
kind of thing that makes it easier for the cops
to get out there to do the job they expect
to do, as opposed to chasing the radio all night
or standing around in front of seven eleven because it
constantly gets shoplifted.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
The biggest problem not only in Washington you see, but
other cities as well, has a lot more to do
not with the police. The police are doing their job
the best they can possibly do. But you have a
city council that is very, very left and they have
the requirement for cash bail. They have reduced all kinds
(12:49):
of crimes so that they're not felt responsible. They know
they can commit the crime and nothing will happen to them,
especially the juveniles. They are getting away with literally murder.
Steve Moore, former FBI guy, this is his team.
Speaker 7 (13:04):
You know. The best example I can give is that
there's there's a heart surgeon and there's an orthopedist. They're
both doctors. They're both great, they know what they're doing,
and they're experts in their field, but they don't cover
for each other when they're on vacation. You're not going
to have a heart surgeon working on your knees and
the orthopedis working on your heart in the same way,
(13:28):
and maybe not to such a severe extent. The FBI
are investigators. They do make arrests. They do, you know,
their SWAT teams go out and do make violent crime
arrests in you know, gangs and things like this. And
police departments though know their streets, they know they have
(13:49):
kind of tribal knowledge of what's going on in their areas,
and they understand the city and they patroled. That is
the difference. FBI agents investigate, they don't. So while there
are law enforcement skills that are common, there has to
be some kind of way that they can melt their skills.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Again, it's not about the police on the street or
the FBI or the National Guard in Washington, d C.
The judges are letting these people go in one door
and out the other without any sort of penalty. They've
got prosecutors, they're sorows funded prosecutors that don't want to
prosecute a lot of the crimes that are taking place.
(14:33):
And again they got the no cash bail situation, which
if we haven't learned anything by now, it's been tried
a number of places, and wherever it's been tried, crime
has got has skyrocketed. I get it. If you're not
going to be held responsible, why not go out and
commit another crime. You don't have to pay any bail.
They let you ride out the door. You don't get
(14:53):
you don't have to sit behind bars. There's enough. There's
no downside to committing crimes. Jim Trustee for Er DOJ
Lawyer makes the point that the progressive city Council and
judges is really the main problem.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
I think it's a combination. I mean, the DC Council
certainly has gone progressive in terms of softening notions of
like bail, you know, not allowing for a cash bail,
which I think is a horribly stupid idea. It basically
means a whole bunch of offenders learn the lesson that
they're not going to be arrested even when they get caught.
And so I think there's room for reform there. But
I gotta tell you, juvenile stuff is a tough thicket.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
You know.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
This is a difficult area where you have to pour
resources in, where you have to figure out ways to
have residential confinement for juveniles, which is expensive and challenging,
and there's a lot to it. I mean, President Trump
and Judge Janine are taking on something that I don't
think is political at all, because the good politics would
be to walk away and let d C fester. But
(15:51):
they're taking on a very challenging, difficult area. It's going
to require federal resources and DC resources to ever try
to make it right. I think it's got a chance
if you're serious about it. You know the problem is
federal prosecution is not much of an option when it
comes to juveniles. But federal resources can help. They're a
force multiplier for the metropolitan police. You can make some
(16:11):
good gang cases, make some good carjacking cases, hopefully have
a little deterrence kick in and knock down that rate.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
So I will hold back my tongue if you will
on making a judgment about this until after the thirty days.
See if Congress passes a law to allow the federal
government to stay there for a long period of time,
which it will take to really make a difference. It
will take years to make a difference in the crime
rate in Washington, DC. Big meeting on Friday. The President
(16:42):
and President Putin are going to meet in Alaska. Kurt Volker,
That's what he does, is all this international intrigue. Here's
his view of what he thinks will happen or not
happen on Friday.
Speaker 8 (16:57):
Well, Vladimir Putin wants to see what he can extract
from Trump. He wants to see whether Trump would agree
to commit to supporting the transfer of territory from Ukraine
to Russia, and in particular the Dombas Region Crimea, and
then they occupy parts of two other regions, Zaparisha and Herson,
and he wants to see whether Trump would commit to
(17:19):
Ukraine being pressure to hand over that territory. I think
he's misreading Trump. I don't think Trump is going to
do that at all. I think He's going to say, look,
there's got to be a deal here. I'm not just
going to cause Ukraine to surrender. And remember, before going
into this meeting, Putin actually increased his demands. He's occupying
(17:41):
parts of those four provinces already. He said he wants
Ukraine to withdraw from territory in the Dombas that it
doesn't currently control that Russia doesn't currently control, as well
as hang on to the parts of Zaparisia and Airsol.
So this is actually demanding everything. I don't think Trump's
going to be very sad aside with the conversation, but
(18:01):
I also don't think that he's ready to pressure Ukraine
to accept a bad deal.
Speaker 5 (18:06):
I'd it.
Speaker 8 (18:07):
Yeah, Well, that's exactly Putin's strategy. As you say, he
wants to deal directly with the US over the heads
of the Ukrainians and over the heads of the Europeans.
But as we know, first off, President Trump is not
in a position to cut a deal with Putin because
it's not his territory, it's not his country, it's Ukraine.
So the Ukrainians have to agree if there's going to
be any deal. And secondly, the Europeans are on the
(18:30):
hook to actually back it up. When we talk about
defense spending, buying American arms, providing them to Ukraine, security
of NATO, security of the European Union, that is all
on the line. And so the Europeans who have to
actually put up the funding for all this, they want
to be sure that they agree with where this is going.
To tell you where I think this wants to go.
(18:53):
It wants to be a ceasefire in place, just where
it is. The fighting stops. Recognition of Russia's illegal claims
to Ukrainian territory, but no fighting to take it back.
We just have a tense standoff that then enables the
EU and European NATO states to lean in help build
(19:14):
up Ukraine's military, their politics, their economy, get them stronger,
and provide security guarantees that they will help to ensure
that there aren't further Russian attacks once to cease fire
is in place, and then this situation can last a
long time, just like we had a divide to Germany
for forty years, just like we had the Baltic States
(19:36):
occupied for forty years. This can last a long time,
but it can create some measure of stability and lack
of fighting, so Ukraine can start to rebuild itself.
Speaker 9 (19:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (19:46):
I do not expect a deal at all, partly because
Putin's not ready to deal, he wants everything, and partly
because President Trump knows that he can't make a deal
with Putin and then just turn to the Ukrainians and say,
now you implemented. The Ukrainians have a stake in this.
So I don't expect a deal. But I do see
what Trump is doing. He is stirring the pot, He's
(20:07):
getting everybody talking, He's raising expectations that Putin needs to
stop the war, and he is setting the stage for
I believe a Trump Zelensky Putin mooting later on.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
So there may not much be much that comes out
of this meeting. Even the President was saying today that
I think his expectations are somewhat in check.
Speaker 10 (20:28):
This is really a feel out meeting, A little bit,
and President Putin invited me to get involved. There'll be
some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia
and through conversations with everybody, to the good for the
good of Ukraine. Good stuff, not bad stuff, also some
bad stuff for both.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
Oh, he's looking for some good stuff and some bad stuff.
Frederick v Legen is a correspondent based in Moscow, and
this is what he's here. From the Russian side.
Speaker 11 (21:01):
Well, Kremlin certainly also sees it as somewhat of a
feel out meeting. It's unclear whether or not any results
are actually going to be reached. However, one of the
things that we're seeing thing of this week is that
the new strategy that the Kremlin seems to have before
this meeting on Friday is to let President Trump pretty
much do all of the talking. The last time that
we've heard from a senior Kremlin official, or that we've
heard from Russia's president himself, Vladimir Putin, was this past Friday,
(21:24):
when the Russians confirmed that the meeting would be in Alaska.
The Russians have a bit of a different take on
things than what we just heard there from President Trump.
Of course, President Trump saying that it was the Russians
who wanted him to get involved and asked for this meeting. However,
senior Kremlin aide said that it was actually the US
that put a proposal on the table, and that for
the Russians that proposal was, as they put it acceptable.
(21:44):
Now at the same time that the Russians are remaining
mute on what exactly the summit can achieve and what
their strategy for it is, we do see Kremlin controlled media,
Russian state media certainly trying to capitalize on things. The
big message that's going on there is that Russia is
starting to make ever larger territorial gains, especially on the
eastern front in Ukraine. There's talk of a lot of
(22:05):
momentum over the past couple of days, and that that's
something that's going to strengthen Vladimir Putin's hand as he
goes into that summit with US President Donald Trump. One
of the things, of course, that the Russians have said
that as far as they're concerned, they have not changed
their stance on Ukraine, which of course has been pretty
much from the get go that they want territorial concessions
(22:26):
from the Ukrainians. They don't want Ukraine to become a
member of NATO, and the pretty much also want the
Ukrainians to all but disarm as well. So certainly it
seems so it could be a difficult meeting. But the
Russians so far not showing their hand as to what
they might put on the table for President Trump to see.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
That might take away simple there's nothing that's going to
come from this meeting. And it's another strategy that Vladimir
Putin is famous for, which is just keep kicking the
can down the road. He wants to keep fighting. The
fighting is not going to stop. People are still going
to die. But they will have had their meeting. Then
what do they do. So this is it's interesting to watch,
(23:05):
but I will be shocked if they actually come out
of the meeting with anything of substance. The economy here
is plugging along. We got our inflation numbers out this morning,
and yeah, the consumer price index it was up two
ten seven percent year over year, inflation at two point
(23:29):
seven percent. The core rate, which is you take out
food and energy and everything else you buy, it was
up three point one percent year over year, so that's
higher than expected. But it was really focused on services.
Services are airline fares, things like that way up much
(23:54):
more than goods. Goods were rather subdued. So the inflation
is not on the things that you pick up at
the grocery store necessarily. It is on the services industry
out there. Insurance, where you get your hair cut, airline fares,
all that is all part of the services sector, and
that is where there's more inflation than in the goods area.
(24:16):
So energy prices down, shelter housing, all that up. Food
pretty much unchanged. Stu Leonard is a big grocer in
the New York City area, has a number of big stores,
very popular grocer, and he was asked about the grocery
(24:40):
prices in particular.
Speaker 12 (24:41):
You know, ribby states are huge, and meat prices have
gone up. We're at a historic low herd size in America,
so the supply is very low and prices ap picked up.
I just talked to our beat fire this morning and
he said he's feeling even more escalation and meat could
be around eighty cents to a dollar a pound coming
(25:05):
up to the holidays. Another thing that's really vague as
we have shrimp, you know, and you know right now
we can either get it from Ecuador, we could get
it from India, but the bay there India has huge tariffs,
so we're not buying it from India right now. That's
fifty percent, I believe, and now Ecuador is that fifteen percent.
(25:29):
So we're trying to move our shrimp production over the Ecuador,
which is huge. We do a half a million pounds
of shrimp a year at Stud Leonard, So it's a
big thing. Coffee is that's a supply and demand issue
right now. They're having some you know, heat problems and
weather problems, so coffee prices and spikes. But you know,
(25:53):
this is a big one here because you know, usually
what we can do here is I can resource product
sort of like what I did during COVID. We were
jumping all around trying to buy product from all over
the world, and we're doing the same thing now because
of the tariffs. So bananas is one thing. It's a
fifteen percent terraff from Costa Rica. We don't grow them
(26:13):
in America, so you have to import those and that's
a fifteen percent tariff. Are importers eating the whole thing?
They have not raised the price yet. So I talked
to our buyers this morning, the Caesar Colm, We have
not raised prices at stew Lenards due to the tariffs.
We've had a little bit of increase in things like
(26:36):
aluminum trays from some China and stuff negligible. We haven't
raised prices, but I don't see that happening unless this
tariff thing gets worked out by really next month or
even October.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
So I hear that a lot. There's a lot of
companies that are trying to not raise prices. They've got
a lot of them were able to buy inventory before
the teriffs went into effect, but that inventory is starting
to be diminished to the point where they don't have
much of it left, and when they run out of that,
they're going to be faced with raising prices. Or in
(27:12):
the case of grocers, their margin, their profit margin is
only two maybe three percent, so they don't have a
lot of room if prices that they've got to pay
go up fifteen percent. So anyway, it's part of the
inflation story. By the way, the new head of the
(27:33):
Bureau of Labor Statistics, his name is ej. Antoni, and
he is talking about don't have this confirmed yet, but
he's talking about just not even reporting the jobs report
for months until they get their Act together over at
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So I don't know if
(27:55):
this was the last CPI report for a while, but
we're going to well it's it's it's garbage in, garbage out.
Jim Kramer and David Faber over at CNBC were committing
about it earlier this morning.
Speaker 13 (28:09):
Ball As started to come around with the idea that
all these numbers need to be rethought.
Speaker 9 (28:14):
What do you mean when you say that? I mean
I would think this number was important. Obviously, the Fed
continues to look for real impacts, and I don't.
Speaker 14 (28:20):
Know prices for the tariffs, and it's not happening here
Labor Statistics. So I mean, like, hey, goodbye, because you're
not going to believe them any longer as a result
of the change in leadership there.
Speaker 10 (28:31):
No, I'm not I'm not going to leave anything.
Speaker 8 (28:32):
Well that's not good.
Speaker 9 (28:33):
How are you supposed to navigate macroeconomic Look at company
and the market.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
I'm looking at companies.
Speaker 13 (28:38):
I'm not going to have people buy and sell based
on that nonset. So that buy and sell because the
company is doing better or worse all this compact, say
one of my Starbucks. But I look at the bo
lesson and says she's I don't know, food at home
is off? Should not buy Starbucks. That's the kind of
thing that's happening to our audience. They're like saying, well,
I guess they don't mean it.
Speaker 7 (28:57):
Buy Starbucks.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
Let's rewind for a second.
Speaker 9 (29:00):
And so the fact that the president got rid of
the person running the BLS mattered to you, Well.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
Who's turning right now?
Speaker 9 (29:06):
Just like nobody, he's got somebody in mind to talk about.
Speaker 13 (29:11):
Who's running right now? Chat ept who's running? That would
be back crock. I mean, like hello, ans rob It,
who's running?
Speaker 9 (29:19):
I'm sure there are a lot of very well meaning
employees who work their butts off still trying to get
all the information they can. Jim, I would assume that's.
Speaker 7 (29:29):
The show was sweetie.
Speaker 13 (29:30):
I can ask you, a nice guy, why should I
trust these numbers?
Speaker 1 (29:34):
So he didn't trust the numbers because of all the
massive revisions. And now you have a new appointee that
people will look at and go, is this new guy
going to do political numbers so that he keeps Donald
Trump happy? So I'm not sure if I can trust them,
and they might be politics involved. So that's why Kramer
(29:55):
is going nuts, saying I don't know what numbers to
try anymore. Peter Earle, big economist, after seeing the three
point one percent core CPI number, is react.
Speaker 8 (30:11):
So first I just want to say legs are hard.
Speaker 15 (30:13):
It's very hard to tell what a policy gets put
in place when it's going to hit the economy. So
that's the first thing. The second thing is that I'm
not really a big fan of these numbers. My guess
is that this reading the core number is a combination
of tariff passed through as Steve said, but also there's
some further prices in some consumer categories. Some surveys have
showed that some retailers have accelerated their price increases as
(30:34):
they're drawing down inventory that they built up early in
the year, things like household furnishings, recreational products in peril,
all which come from China, or most of which come
from China. So we knew that terrefold cost pressures were
going to be a key upside going to this release.
Not as bad as we thought, but I mean still,
this is going to complicate the work of the FEDER.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Bit it will complicate the work of the FED. Their
next meeting is mid September, and there's a ninety percent
chance that they will be cutting interest rates in that meeting,
so by a quarter of a percent. Some people are
mumbling about a half a percent. I don't think so.
But the tariffs are poking their head up just a
(31:13):
little bit, not making a big impact. A lot of
people are still working down on the inventory they bought
before the tariffs went into effect, but they're not widespread.
But a lot of the economists are saying it's coming.
But they also said a recession was coming and never
gave So we'll wait and see what happens to prices
(31:35):
and the impact from the tariffs. So despite the higher
inflation numbers, what it does do is it gives they're
just slightly higher. So what it does give is that
opportunity for the Fed to drop their interest rates, which
made Wall Street happy today. Dow Jones Industrials up four
(31:55):
one hundred eighty three to close it forty four four
fifty eight, SMP up seventy two. By the way, that's
a new all time record for standard and porters five
hundred sixty four forty five. Nasdaq up two hundred ninety six.
So all in all, today was a good day, gold
four dollars higher at thirty four h three, and oil
(32:18):
prices down just a little more than a dime at
sixty three dollars for a barrel of oil. Thank you
for coming by today, have yourself a wonderful rest of
your day, and we'll see you back here again tomorrow
And hello, Hi, How are you welcome to the Big Podcast.
Today is Tuesday. It is the twelfth day of August,
year of our lower twenty twenty five. My name is
Tom Sullivan. Well, busy day today. We've got a lot
to cover. I've got to follow up on the story
still kind of ranking Number one today is about what's
(00:21):
going on in Washington, d C. And the federal government
taking control of the city and the police in order
to knock down the crime. And we've got a lot
to cover there. We've got the big meeting in Russia,
the big meeting in Alaska with Russian President Putin and
President Trump on Friday. We'll get you set up for
(00:42):
some of the thoughts on that and the economy. We
got the inflation rate out today and there was no nothing,
nothing rattled the cages there. So we'll get into all
of that. But let me start with Washington, d C.
Because I yesterday I was talking about and I know
that you're supposed to I guess if you're pro Trump,
(01:04):
you're supposed to rave about how this is going to
be so wonderful, and if you don't like Trump, you
think this is the worst thing ever that could possibly
have I'm not either of those. I just look at
it and I really do hope that it would make
some difference. And of course we're all rooting for less crime.
(01:26):
I just Washington d C. I know it well enough
to know that Washington, d C. Has had a high
crime rate for as long as I can remember. And
so yesterday statistics came out that well, look at this,
the crime rate's been dropping. Why the crime rate is
down to a thirty year low. We played a clip
of Cash Patel, the FBI director, reading off the statistics, saying,
(01:52):
this is the lowest we've had in thirty years. I
thought it was funny because of the fact that he
was supposed to be on the podium with the President
and the Attorney General talking about how they're going to
crack down on crime, and he gets up there and says, wow,
it looks like crimes come down quite a bit. So
statistics are nice, But the argument today is that that's
(02:17):
not what people are experiencing. The problem with that sort
of thing is all of you. I don't care if
you live in small town USA or you live in
New York City, you may or probably don't have much
interaction with crime. But when it happens to you, it's
a big deal. So there's now a bunch of people
(02:40):
today out there talking about why I saw a guy
shot in front of me, why there was a my
house was broken into, my car was broken. So they've
got all these anecdotal stories about crime. My problem isn't
about any of that. The point I'm trying to make
(03:00):
about the federal government stepping in to Washington, d C.
Is that I don't know if they're going to be
able to really accomplish anything. And that's what drives me
crazy about government. They come up with some policy that
does nothing effectively zero. And I have always in my
(03:20):
business life, you don't waste your time on something that's
not going to lead to some good result. You go
on to something else. And what I'm referring to is
that Washington is federal territory. It's not a state. They
answer the organizational charge. Yeah, they've got a mayor and
(03:41):
a chief of police and all that, but they answer
to Congress and the President. So nineteen seventy three, Congress
passed the Home Rule Act, and the Home Rule Act
says it allows the President to take control of the
DC police for forty eight hours if he determines that
(04:02):
special conditions of an emergency nature exists. Well, you're talking
about riots something like that in nineteen seventy three, coming
off the Civil Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and
then the civil rights riots going on in cities across
America in the late sixties early seventies, So that's what
(04:23):
that was about. It goes on to say forty eight
hour period can be extended if he notifies the relevant
congressional committees. I don't know which committees those are, but
then you can be extended. Doesn't say for how long.
And finally that president can take control for over thirty
(04:44):
days only if it's passed into law. So he's got
to go to Congress, and Congress I know they're worthless.
They have to sit down and debate some new law
and then pass it and then go to the president
for signature. So I'm looking at this and I'm going
you're not going to solve the crime problem in Washington,
(05:06):
d C. In forty eight hours, okay, Tom, But they
have thirty days, okay. So they get the extension to
thirty days. You're not going to solve it in thirty days.
To my point about this is not going to lead
to Diddley Squad. It will sound good, there will be
a lot of good soundbites, but I'm telling you, people
(05:31):
are all twisted into a pretzel over this whole thing.
I just told the whole thing is well, you can
speculate on why they're doing this, but I just don't
think it's going to change the crime rate in Washington,
d C. If I was a criminal and I knew
that they got the National Guard and all these other
(05:53):
things out there to supplement the DC police, I just
cool my jets for thirty days. Yeah, all right, So
I can't go out there and break into cars this week.
I'll wait until thirty days go by. Then I'm going
to go back out to committee my crimes. I don't know.
Harry Anton, the statistician over at CNN, had a look
(06:17):
at this. Here's his take.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
No, No, they hate this whole idea. I think there's
some idea out there that trumps somehow a conquering hero.
But he's in fact is welcomed in Washington, d C.
As Eagles fans are Commander's games. What are we talking
about here, Well, they could take a look here. DC
residents on Trump and local issues, He's too involved. Look
at this, seventy one percent say he is too involved,
and this course was even before Monday's actions, compared to
(06:40):
just eleven percent, just eleven percent who say they want
him more involved. In fact, a majority of every single
demo tested by The Washington Post and a poll earlier
this year, found that they believed that he was in
fact too involved. DC residents hate, hate this whole idea
of Trump getting involved in local issues. Yeah, okay, so
let's talk about that a little bit right. Residence on
the top problem facing DC crime, violence, and guns in
(07:03):
twenty twenty two was thirty six percent, but look at this,
it dropped fifteen points to twenty one percent earlier this year.
I should note that about fifty percent of DC residents
do believe that crime is extremely a very important problem.
But even that fifty percent is down from sixty five
percent back in twenty twenty four. So DC residents, like
the crime statistics themselves, suggest that crime is becoming less
(07:25):
of an issue in our nation's capital. And at this
particular point, just twenty one percent of DC residents in
fact believe that the top problem facing Washington, DC is crime, violence,
and guns and that might be part of the reason
why DC residents in fact believe that Trump's getting too
involved in local issues and won't exactly like this move. Yeah,
a lot of people have been concentrating on the policy
of this decision by President Trump, but I think it's
(07:46):
also important to point out the politics of this decision
and just talk about one reason why Donald Trump might
not like Washington DC besides the crime issue, and that
is because take a look at all of the counties
or the county equivalents nationwide, we're talking over three thousand.
Where did Donald Trump do the worst in twenty twenty four, Well,
he did the worst in Washington DC, getting just six
(08:06):
point five percent of the vote. The vast, vast majority,
ninety percent plus of DC voters went against Donald Trump. Again,
I just think it's so important to point out that
DC residents don't like this move, and they really don't
like President Trump. They hate Donald Trump, they hate Republicans.
Over and over again, they have voted against Donald Trump,
voted against Republicans and again on the crime issue. That's
(08:28):
so important. A smaller and smaller percentage going down, down, down.
Believe it is the top problem in our nation's capital
So there you go.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
The people of DC don't want anything to do with this.
They don't like Donald Trump, they don't like Republicans. And
you heard Harry, They've only six percent of the people
that are residents of Washington, d C. Voted for Donald Trump.
It's a political thing with him. They don't like Republicans,
they don't like him, they don't want him involved. So
(08:58):
that's it's their crime. If they won't live in a
high crime city, it's up to them to figure out
the solution. Megan Hayes is a big Democrat. She was
on Biden's communication team. She thinks it's a trap for Democrats.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
Listen, well, I think democrats have learned in the last
election and how Donald Trump continues to frame things that
talking about crime and immigration are two things that pull
very popular with the American people. So when Democrats come
out here and say, don't believe you're lying eyes DC
doesn't have crime, nobody actually believes that, and it just
falls into Donald Trump's messaging. In Donald Trump's trap because
(09:33):
we just look crazy saying that. And so I think
that it's smart for Mary Hobauser to come out and
say we're going to work with you We're excited you're here.
We wish you we would have done this differently, and
we wish you would have you know, it is concerning
to us, but we wish you would have worked with us.
But we're not going to say, don't believe you're lying eyes.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
The guy that agrees with her is on the opposite
side of the aisle. He speaks for conservative Scott Jennings.
He thinks she's right.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
I totally agree.
Speaker 5 (09:57):
I think that anybody who visits Washington on a regular basis,
anybody who lives there, would tell you the city is unsafe.
This argument that some people are putting forth that it's
a totally safe place to be and the president's making
up this crisis.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
No, it's an emergency.
Speaker 5 (10:10):
I mean, I myself saw a body hit the floor
at the bottom of the escalator and Union station back
in February. An eighteen year old kid was gunned down
and murdered there in cold blood. So I think Megan
is on the strategic piece is exactly right. I think
Democrats did the same thing on immigration. Frankly, you know,
the president says I want to crack down on immigration
and have some internal enforcement and shut down the border
(10:32):
and Democrats of course, went all in on defending the
other position. I think he's going to find a lot
of political support around the country for the idea that
our national capital should be safer than it is.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
It should be safer, all big cities should be safer.
But I don't know how you're going to exactly eliminate crime.
More importantly, I go back to the process of this
is limited to forty eight hours or gets extended all
the way out to thirty days, and I'm going whooped
the dew. They're not going to solve the crime in Washington,
DC in that period of time. But the police will
(11:05):
like it because they're going to have eight hundred National
Guard that will supplement them being eyes and ears out
on the street trying to stop crime. Paul Moraw, former
lieutenant with the NYPD, thinks they're going to like it.
Speaker 6 (11:23):
Yeah, they're going to welcome it because they're going to
get the assistance that they need in various things that
are the kind of things they don't want to do.
Let's tease it out. When you have something like the
National Guard coming in, right, they're not trained to go in.
Let's say, do search warrants, make arrests street encounters, but
they're almost certainly going to be used for is prophylactic
things that rely upon their professional presence. So we're going
(11:45):
to have a curfew, right. They're actually have already put
that in place, and in some cases they're actually making
it even more draconian because they want the young kids
who are committing a lot of these crimes off your streets. Well,
if you have around some of the trouble areas stationed
National Guard, some bi people that are going around that
are visible, that stops stuff before it happens. It's a
great force multiplier and it saves the police from having
(12:08):
to do that kind of stuff, frees them up to
handle the jobs that are coming over to radio, to
go to the house, knock on the door, ma'am you
called nine one one, what's going on? And that's the
kind of thing that makes it easier for the cops
to get out there to do the job they expect
to do, as opposed to chasing the radio all night
or standing around in front of seven eleven because it
constantly gets shoplifted.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
The biggest problem not only in Washington you see, but
other cities as well, has a lot more to do
not with the police. The police are doing their job
the best they can possibly do. But you have a
city council that is very, very left and they have
the requirement for cash bail. They have reduced all kinds
(12:49):
of crimes so that they're not felt responsible. They know
they can commit the crime and nothing will happen to them,
especially the juveniles. They are getting away with literally murder.
Steve Moore, former FBI guy, this is his team.
Speaker 7 (13:04):
You know. The best example I can give is that
there's there's a heart surgeon and there's an orthopedist. They're
both doctors. They're both great, they know what they're doing,
and they're experts in their field, but they don't cover
for each other when they're on vacation. You're not going
to have a heart surgeon working on your knees and
the orthopedis working on your heart in the same way,
(13:28):
and maybe not to such a severe extent. The FBI
are investigators. They do make arrests. They do, you know,
their SWAT teams go out and do make violent crime
arrests in you know, gangs and things like this. And
police departments though know their streets, they know they have
(13:49):
kind of tribal knowledge of what's going on in their areas,
and they understand the city and they patroled. That is
the difference. FBI agents investigate, they don't. So while there
are law enforcement skills that are common, there has to
be some kind of way that they can melt their skills.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Again, it's not about the police on the street or
the FBI or the National Guard in Washington, d C.
The judges are letting these people go in one door
and out the other without any sort of penalty. They've
got prosecutors, they're sorows funded prosecutors that don't want to
prosecute a lot of the crimes that are taking place.
(14:33):
And again they got the no cash bail situation, which
if we haven't learned anything by now, it's been tried
a number of places, and wherever it's been tried, crime
has got has skyrocketed. I get it. If you're not
going to be held responsible, why not go out and
commit another crime. You don't have to pay any bail.
They let you ride out the door. You don't get
(14:53):
you don't have to sit behind bars. There's enough. There's
no downside to committing crimes. Jim Trustee for Er DOJ
Lawyer makes the point that the progressive city Council and
judges is really the main problem.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
I think it's a combination. I mean, the DC Council
certainly has gone progressive in terms of softening notions of
like bail, you know, not allowing for a cash bail,
which I think is a horribly stupid idea. It basically
means a whole bunch of offenders learn the lesson that
they're not going to be arrested even when they get caught.
And so I think there's room for reform there. But
I gotta tell you, juvenile stuff is a tough thicket.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
You know.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
This is a difficult area where you have to pour
resources in, where you have to figure out ways to
have residential confinement for juveniles, which is expensive and challenging,
and there's a lot to it. I mean, President Trump
and Judge Janine are taking on something that I don't
think is political at all, because the good politics would
be to walk away and let d C fester. But
(15:51):
they're taking on a very challenging, difficult area. It's going
to require federal resources and DC resources to ever try
to make it right. I think it's got a chance
if you're serious about it. You know the problem is
federal prosecution is not much of an option when it
comes to juveniles. But federal resources can help. They're a
force multiplier for the metropolitan police. You can make some
(16:11):
good gang cases, make some good carjacking cases, hopefully have
a little deterrence kick in and knock down that rate.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
So I will hold back my tongue if you will
on making a judgment about this until after the thirty days.
See if Congress passes a law to allow the federal
government to stay there for a long period of time,
which it will take to really make a difference. It
will take years to make a difference in the crime
rate in Washington, DC. Big meeting on Friday. The President
(16:42):
and President Putin are going to meet in Alaska. Kurt Volker,
That's what he does, is all this international intrigue. Here's
his view of what he thinks will happen or not
happen on Friday.
Speaker 8 (16:57):
Well, Vladimir Putin wants to see what he can extract
from Trump. He wants to see whether Trump would agree
to commit to supporting the transfer of territory from Ukraine
to Russia, and in particular the Dombas Region Crimea, and
then they occupy parts of two other regions, Zaparisha and Herson,
and he wants to see whether Trump would commit to
(17:19):
Ukraine being pressure to hand over that territory. I think
he's misreading Trump. I don't think Trump is going to
do that at all. I think He's going to say, look,
there's got to be a deal here. I'm not just
going to cause Ukraine to surrender. And remember, before going
into this meeting, Putin actually increased his demands. He's occupying
(17:41):
parts of those four provinces already. He said he wants
Ukraine to withdraw from territory in the Dombas that it
doesn't currently control that Russia doesn't currently control, as well
as hang on to the parts of Zaparisia and Airsol.
So this is actually demanding everything. I don't think Trump's
going to be very sad aside with the conversation, but
(18:01):
I also don't think that he's ready to pressure Ukraine
to accept a bad deal.
Speaker 5 (18:06):
I'd it.
Speaker 8 (18:07):
Yeah, Well, that's exactly Putin's strategy. As you say, he
wants to deal directly with the US over the heads
of the Ukrainians and over the heads of the Europeans.
But as we know, first off, President Trump is not
in a position to cut a deal with Putin because
it's not his territory, it's not his country, it's Ukraine.
So the Ukrainians have to agree if there's going to
be any deal. And secondly, the Europeans are on the
(18:30):
hook to actually back it up. When we talk about
defense spending, buying American arms, providing them to Ukraine, security
of NATO, security of the European Union, that is all
on the line. And so the Europeans who have to
actually put up the funding for all this, they want
to be sure that they agree with where this is going.
To tell you where I think this wants to go.
(18:53):
It wants to be a ceasefire in place, just where
it is. The fighting stops. Recognition of Russia's illegal claims
to Ukrainian territory, but no fighting to take it back.
We just have a tense standoff that then enables the
EU and European NATO states to lean in help build
(19:14):
up Ukraine's military, their politics, their economy, get them stronger,
and provide security guarantees that they will help to ensure
that there aren't further Russian attacks once to cease fire
is in place, and then this situation can last a
long time, just like we had a divide to Germany
for forty years, just like we had the Baltic States
(19:36):
occupied for forty years. This can last a long time,
but it can create some measure of stability and lack
of fighting, so Ukraine can start to rebuild itself.
Speaker 9 (19:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (19:46):
I do not expect a deal at all, partly because
Putin's not ready to deal, he wants everything, and partly
because President Trump knows that he can't make a deal
with Putin and then just turn to the Ukrainians and say,
now you implemented. The Ukrainians have a stake in this.
So I don't expect a deal. But I do see
what Trump is doing. He is stirring the pot, He's
(20:07):
getting everybody talking, He's raising expectations that Putin needs to
stop the war, and he is setting the stage for
I believe a Trump Zelensky Putin mooting later on.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
So there may not much be much that comes out
of this meeting. Even the President was saying today that
I think his expectations are somewhat in check.
Speaker 10 (20:28):
This is really a feel out meeting, A little bit,
and President Putin invited me to get involved. There'll be
some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia
and through conversations with everybody, to the good for the
good of Ukraine. Good stuff, not bad stuff, also some
bad stuff for both.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
Oh, he's looking for some good stuff and some bad stuff.
Frederick v Legen is a correspondent based in Moscow, and
this is what he's here. From the Russian side.
Speaker 11 (21:01):
Well, Kremlin certainly also sees it as somewhat of a
feel out meeting. It's unclear whether or not any results
are actually going to be reached. However, one of the
things that we're seeing thing of this week is that
the new strategy that the Kremlin seems to have before
this meeting on Friday is to let President Trump pretty
much do all of the talking. The last time that
we've heard from a senior Kremlin official, or that we've
heard from Russia's president himself, Vladimir Putin, was this past Friday,
(21:24):
when the Russians confirmed that the meeting would be in Alaska.
The Russians have a bit of a different take on
things than what we just heard there from President Trump.
Of course, President Trump saying that it was the Russians
who wanted him to get involved and asked for this meeting. However,
senior Kremlin aide said that it was actually the US
that put a proposal on the table, and that for
the Russians that proposal was, as they put it acceptable.
(21:44):
Now at the same time that the Russians are remaining
mute on what exactly the summit can achieve and what
their strategy for it is, we do see Kremlin controlled media,
Russian state media certainly trying to capitalize on things. The
big message that's going on there is that Russia is
starting to make ever larger territorial gains, especially on the
eastern front in Ukraine. There's talk of a lot of
(22:05):
momentum over the past couple of days, and that that's
something that's going to strengthen Vladimir Putin's hand as he
goes into that summit with US President Donald Trump. One
of the things, of course, that the Russians have said
that as far as they're concerned, they have not changed
their stance on Ukraine, which of course has been pretty
much from the get go that they want territorial concessions
(22:26):
from the Ukrainians. They don't want Ukraine to become a
member of NATO, and the pretty much also want the
Ukrainians to all but disarm as well. So certainly it
seems so it could be a difficult meeting. But the
Russians so far not showing their hand as to what
they might put on the table for President Trump to see.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
That might take away simple there's nothing that's going to
come from this meeting. And it's another strategy that Vladimir
Putin is famous for, which is just keep kicking the
can down the road. He wants to keep fighting. The
fighting is not going to stop. People are still going
to die. But they will have had their meeting. Then
what do they do. So this is it's interesting to watch,
(23:05):
but I will be shocked if they actually come out
of the meeting with anything of substance. The economy here
is plugging along. We got our inflation numbers out this morning,
and yeah, the consumer price index it was up two
ten seven percent year over year, inflation at two point
(23:29):
seven percent. The core rate, which is you take out
food and energy and everything else you buy, it was
up three point one percent year over year, so that's
higher than expected. But it was really focused on services.
Services are airline fares, things like that way up much
(23:54):
more than goods. Goods were rather subdued. So the inflation
is not on the things that you pick up at
the grocery store necessarily. It is on the services industry
out there. Insurance, where you get your hair cut, airline fares,
all that is all part of the services sector, and
that is where there's more inflation than in the goods area.
(24:16):
So energy prices down, shelter housing, all that up. Food
pretty much unchanged. Stu Leonard is a big grocer in
the New York City area, has a number of big stores,
very popular grocer, and he was asked about the grocery
(24:40):
prices in particular.
Speaker 12 (24:41):
You know, ribby states are huge, and meat prices have
gone up. We're at a historic low herd size in America,
so the supply is very low and prices ap picked up.
I just talked to our beat fire this morning and
he said he's feeling even more escalation and meat could
be around eighty cents to a dollar a pound coming
(25:05):
up to the holidays. Another thing that's really vague as
we have shrimp, you know, and you know right now
we can either get it from Ecuador, we could get
it from India, but the bay there India has huge tariffs,
so we're not buying it from India right now. That's
fifty percent, I believe, and now Ecuador is that fifteen percent.
(25:29):
So we're trying to move our shrimp production over the Ecuador,
which is huge. We do a half a million pounds
of shrimp a year at Stud Leonard, So it's a
big thing. Coffee is that's a supply and demand issue
right now. They're having some you know, heat problems and
weather problems, so coffee prices and spikes. But you know,
(25:53):
this is a big one here because you know, usually
what we can do here is I can resource product
sort of like what I did during COVID. We were
jumping all around trying to buy product from all over
the world, and we're doing the same thing now because
of the tariffs. So bananas is one thing. It's a
fifteen percent terraff from Costa Rica. We don't grow them
(26:13):
in America, so you have to import those and that's
a fifteen percent tariff. Are importers eating the whole thing?
They have not raised the price yet. So I talked
to our buyers this morning, the Caesar Colm, We have
not raised prices at stew Lenards due to the tariffs.
We've had a little bit of increase in things like
(26:36):
aluminum trays from some China and stuff negligible. We haven't
raised prices, but I don't see that happening unless this
tariff thing gets worked out by really next month or
even October.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
So I hear that a lot. There's a lot of
companies that are trying to not raise prices. They've got
a lot of them were able to buy inventory before
the teriffs went into effect, but that inventory is starting
to be diminished to the point where they don't have
much of it left, and when they run out of that,
they're going to be faced with raising prices. Or in
(27:12):
the case of grocers, their margin, their profit margin is
only two maybe three percent, so they don't have a
lot of room if prices that they've got to pay
go up fifteen percent. So anyway, it's part of the
inflation story. By the way, the new head of the
(27:33):
Bureau of Labor Statistics, his name is ej. Antoni, and
he is talking about don't have this confirmed yet, but
he's talking about just not even reporting the jobs report
for months until they get their Act together over at
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So I don't know if
(27:55):
this was the last CPI report for a while, but
we're going to well it's it's it's garbage in, garbage out.
Jim Kramer and David Faber over at CNBC were committing
about it earlier this morning.
Speaker 13 (28:09):
Ball As started to come around with the idea that
all these numbers need to be rethought.
Speaker 9 (28:14):
What do you mean when you say that? I mean
I would think this number was important. Obviously, the Fed
continues to look for real impacts, and I don't.
Speaker 14 (28:20):
Know prices for the tariffs, and it's not happening here
Labor Statistics. So I mean, like, hey, goodbye, because you're
not going to believe them any longer as a result
of the change in leadership there.
Speaker 10 (28:31):
No, I'm not I'm not going to leave anything.
Speaker 8 (28:32):
Well that's not good.
Speaker 9 (28:33):
How are you supposed to navigate macroeconomic Look at company
and the market.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
I'm looking at companies.
Speaker 13 (28:38):
I'm not going to have people buy and sell based
on that nonset. So that buy and sell because the
company is doing better or worse all this compact, say
one of my Starbucks. But I look at the bo
lesson and says she's I don't know, food at home
is off? Should not buy Starbucks. That's the kind of
thing that's happening to our audience. They're like saying, well,
I guess they don't mean it.
Speaker 7 (28:57):
Buy Starbucks.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
Let's rewind for a second.
Speaker 9 (29:00):
And so the fact that the president got rid of
the person running the BLS mattered to you, Well.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
Who's turning right now?
Speaker 9 (29:06):
Just like nobody, he's got somebody in mind to talk about.
Speaker 13 (29:11):
Who's running right now? Chat ept who's running? That would
be back crock. I mean, like hello, ans rob It,
who's running?
Speaker 9 (29:19):
I'm sure there are a lot of very well meaning
employees who work their butts off still trying to get
all the information they can. Jim, I would assume that's.
Speaker 7 (29:29):
The show was sweetie.
Speaker 13 (29:30):
I can ask you, a nice guy, why should I
trust these numbers?
Speaker 1 (29:34):
So he didn't trust the numbers because of all the
massive revisions. And now you have a new appointee that
people will look at and go, is this new guy
going to do political numbers so that he keeps Donald
Trump happy? So I'm not sure if I can trust them,
and they might be politics involved. So that's why Kramer
(29:55):
is going nuts, saying I don't know what numbers to
try anymore. Peter Earle, big economist, after seeing the three
point one percent core CPI number, is react.
Speaker 8 (30:11):
So first I just want to say legs are hard.
Speaker 15 (30:13):
It's very hard to tell what a policy gets put
in place when it's going to hit the economy. So
that's the first thing. The second thing is that I'm
not really a big fan of these numbers. My guess
is that this reading the core number is a combination
of tariff passed through as Steve said, but also there's
some further prices in some consumer categories. Some surveys have
showed that some retailers have accelerated their price increases as
(30:34):
they're drawing down inventory that they built up early in
the year, things like household furnishings, recreational products in peril,
all which come from China, or most of which come
from China. So we knew that terrefold cost pressures were
going to be a key upside going to this release.
Not as bad as we thought, but I mean still,
this is going to complicate the work of the FEDER.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Bit it will complicate the work of the FED. Their
next meeting is mid September, and there's a ninety percent
chance that they will be cutting interest rates in that meeting,
so by a quarter of a percent. Some people are
mumbling about a half a percent. I don't think so.
But the tariffs are poking their head up just a
(31:13):
little bit, not making a big impact. A lot of
people are still working down on the inventory they bought
before the tariffs went into effect, but they're not widespread.
But a lot of the economists are saying it's coming.
But they also said a recession was coming and never
gave So we'll wait and see what happens to prices
(31:35):
and the impact from the tariffs. So despite the higher
inflation numbers, what it does do is it gives they're
just slightly higher. So what it does give is that
opportunity for the Fed to drop their interest rates, which
made Wall Street happy today. Dow Jones Industrials up four
(31:55):
one hundred eighty three to close it forty four four
fifty eight, SMP up seventy two. By the way, that's
a new all time record for standard and porters five
hundred sixty four forty five. Nasdaq up two hundred ninety six.
So all in all, today was a good day, gold
four dollars higher at thirty four h three, and oil
(32:18):
prices down just a little more than a dime at
sixty three dollars for a barrel of oil. Thank you
for coming by today, have yourself a wonderful rest of
your day, and we'll see you back here again tomorrow
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com